Tense Markers and -ko Constructions in Korean
Hee-Rahk Chae
Dept. of Linguistics and Cognitive Science, Hankuk Univ. of Foreign Studies
Gyeonggi 449-791, Korea
[email protected]
Abstract. There have been heated debates on whether tense markers in Korean are inflectional
affixes or syntactic words. One of the strongest pieces of evidence for the latter position comes from
tense-related phenomena in -ko constructions. These constructions are usually assumed to consist of
two coordinate clauses. In this paper, we will see that the tense phenomena can be accounted for
naturally by correctly identifying the non-past tense marker and by seriously taking consideration of
the fact that -ko is ambiguous between a coordinate marker and a subordinate marker. It will be
shown that the tense marker in the second conjunct does not have any effect on the first conjunct
when -ko functions as a coordinate marker, which will render the position very weak that tense
markers are syntactic words.
Keywords: Tense markers, Null-form elements, Korean, -ko constructions, Coordinate markers,
Subordinate markers, Ambiguity.
1
Introduction
The purpose of this paper is two-fold. On the one hand, we will identify the morpho-syntactic status of
the tense markers in Korean. On the other, we will provide a new system for accounting for the tenserelated phenomena in “-ko coordinate constructions.” The element -ko is generally regarded to be a
typical coordinate marker in Korean. Our analysis is based on two important observations, which are not
new findings but have not been duly appreciated thus far. Firstly, the marker -ko is actually ambiguous
between a coordinate marker and a subordinate marker. Secondly, the non-past tense marker is not -n or
-nun but a null form element -ø. That is, the marker does not have an explicit form, contrary to the
general belief. We will see that these observations lead to a natural explanation of the tense phenomena
in -ko constructions.
As for the morpho-syntactic status of the Korean tense markers, two large groups of different
analyses have been proposed: “lexical analyses” and “syntactic analyses.” The tense markers are
generally assumed to be inflectional affixes in the former group, while they are assumed to be “clitics”
in the latter. Clitics are “grammatical units with some properties of inflectional morphology and some of
independent words” ([17], [18]). They cannot stand alone phonologically just like inflectional affixes,
but they are words on their own syntactically just like regular words. We can easily see that tense
markers are inflectional affixes in such head-initial languages as English because the verb together with
a tense marker comes before its complements. However, it has long been an issue of hot disputes to
correctly identify the morpho-syntactic status of tense markers in Korean, a head-final language. It is not
clear whether they are attached to the verb (V) or to the verb phrase (VP) concerned. In the former case,
they should be regarded as inflectional affixes, while, in the latter case, they should be regarded as
clitics.
2
Previous Analyses
The behavior of tense markers in such -ko constructions as (1a) has played a crucial role in arguing for
their morpho-syntactic status:
191
(1) a. cyon-un pap-ul
mek-ko meyli-nun ppang-ul mek-ess-ta.
John-Contr boiled rice-Acc eat-Conj Mary-Contr bread-Acc eat-Past-Decl
‘John ate boiled rice and Mary ate bread.’
b. cyon-un pap-ul mek-ess-ko meyli-nun ppang-ul mek-ess-ta.
eat-Past-Conj
‘John ate boiled rice and Mary ate bread.’
In sentence (a), unlike in sentence (b), the past tense marker -ess occurs only in the second clause but
the whole sentence lies within its scope (assuming the given interpretation). As sentences like (a) seem
to show that the tense marker can be attached to a unit larger than the verb, they are taken as an
indisputable evidence for the clitic-hood of the tense markers (by those taking the syntactic approaches).
From a lexicalist point of view, however, it has not been very comfortable to admit that tense markers
are clitics because they are typically realized as inflectional affixes in many languages of the world.
In the tradition of Chomsky’s Government and Binding (GB) theory, sentences like (1a) have
generally been analyzed as containing a coordinate VP structure and a clitic tense marker (cf. [16]).
From the end of the eighties, however, it has been argued that the first clause in the -ko construction is a
subordinate/adjunct clause rather than a coordinate/conjunct clause ([9], [14], [11], [10]). Let us
examine the following sentence:
(2) mues-ul cyon-i
[chaek-ul ilk-ko] [e mek-ess-ni]?
what-Acc John-Nom book-Acc read-Conj eat-Past-Int
‘What did John eat after reading books?’
If the first clause is a coordinate clause, this sentence would be ungrammatical because the extraction of
mues-ul ‘what’ only from the second conjunct would violate the “coordinate structure constraint.” If, on
the other hand, the first clause is a subordinate clause, the extraction would not violate any of the island
constraints. In addition, even from a lexicalist point of view, in which the past tense marker is assumed
to be an inflectional affix, we can easily account for the past tense interpretation of the first clause in
sentence (1a). Kang ([9], [10]) and Yi ([14]) assume that the first clause in the -ko construction is always
a subordinate clause. Kim ([11]) assumes that the first clause is a subordinate clause only when it does
not bear an explicit tense marker as in (1a).
However, the first clause in the -ko construction does not always show the adjunct properties (even
when the first clause does not have an explicit tense marker). Let us examine the following set of data:
(3) *mues-ul cyon-i
[chaek-ul ilk-ess-ko]
[e mek-ess-ni]?
what-Acc John-Nom book-Acc read-Past-Conj
eat-Past-Int
‘*What did John read books and eat?’
(4) cyon-un
cikum pap-ul
mek-ko meyli-nun akka ppang-ul mek-ess-ta.
John-Contr now boiled rice-Acc eat-Conj Mary-Contr before bread-Acc eat-Past-Decl
‘John is eating boiled rice now and Mary ate bread a moment ago.’
Unlike sentence (2), sentence (3), which contains an explicit tense marker in the first clause, is
ungrammatical. It is subject to the coordinate structure constraint. In sentence (4), each of the two
clauses describes an independent event, which strongly implies that the two clauses are in a conjunctconjunct relationship. In consideration of these conjunct properties together with the adjunct properties
of the -ko construction, some scholars proposed that the first clause is ambiguous between adjunct and
conjunct clauses ([4], [5]; [15]; [6], [7], [8]).
Cho ([4], [5]) provides a lexical analysis of such sentences as (1a) and (4). His main arguments are as
follows: i) non-tensed phrases are either conjuncts or adjuncts, ii) ‘V-ko’ marks either a conjunct or an
adjunct of a “sequential” reading, and iii) the across-the-board violation is allowed only when the nonfinal clauses are adjuncts. According to Cho, the first clause in sentences like (4) as well as those like
(1a) is a non-tensed phrase (and, hence, is ambiguous between a conjunct reading and an adjunct
reading). However, as we just saw, it is not plausible to assume that the clause is (always) non-tensed.
As it describes an event which is independent from the event in the second clause, it has to be a unit
192
containing its own tense. As this important presupposition behind his arguments is not tenable, his
system does not stand on a firm ground any longer.
Unlike other analyses in the GB tradition, Chung ([6], [7], [8]) argues that “tenseless VPs” can have
an asymmetric tense interpretation and that sentences with an asymmetric interpretation should be
analyzed as an instance of tense phrase (TP) coordination rather than VP coordination. For example, he
analyzes sentence (5a) as in (5b) ([8], p. 557):
(5) a. motwu (ecey)
yehayng ttena-ko na-man honca (cikum) cip-ul
ciki-nta.
all
yesterday trip
leave-Conj I-only alone now house-Acc keep-(Pres)Decl
‘All others left on a trip (yesterday) and I am alone staying home (now).’
b.
TP
TP1
VP
-ko
T1
V
TP2
VP
-øpast
T2
V
-npres
He posits a null past tense marker -øpast to account for the fact that the first clause has a past tense
interpretation. However, the tense phenomenon here is not syntactic in nature. In the following sentence,
the first clause has an interpretation of the past perfect:
(6) motwu yehayng ttena-ko na-man honca cip-ul
ciki-ess-ta.
all
trip
leave-Conj I-only alone house-Acc keep-Past-Decl
‘All others had left on a trip and I was alone staying home.’
If we are going to account for the tense phenomenon in (5a) with reference to the marker -øpast, we
would need to posit another null form tense marker, i.e. -øpast perfect, for the interpretation of sentence (6).
Most of all, as the author himself admits ([8], p. 567), we do not have any resources in sentence (5a) to
rely on to get the past tense interpretation when the adverb ecey ‘yesterday’ does not appear.
In dealing with sentences like (1a), Lee ([12], p. 616) proposes a set of criteria for distinguishing
finite TP conjuncts form nonfinite VP conjuncts:
(7) a. When the conjunct contains a null non-past tense morpheme, this is an example of real TP
coordination.
b. When the conjunct is c-commanded by a tense morpheme that has scope over the entire
coordination, … the non-final conjunct is … a VP.
c. When there is a temporal adverb in the conjunct, the conjunct is … a VP.
These criteria, however, are neither homogeneous nor exclusive of each other. For example, the first
conjunct of sentence (4) can be either a TP or a VP, depending on whether we use (7a) or (7c). The
problem becomes more serious when the conjunct contains both an explicit tense marker and a temporal
adverb:
(8) cyon-un akka pap-ul
mek-ess-ko meyli-nun ecey
ppang-ul mek-ess-ta.
John-Contr before boiled rice-Acc eat-Past-Conj Mary-Contr yesterday bread-Acc eat-Past-Decl
‘John ate boiled rice a moment ago and Mary ate bread yesterday.’
As the first conjunct has an explicit tense marker, it can only be a TP. However, it becomes a VP when
we use the criterion (7c) because it has a temporal adverb akka ‘before.’ As a related problem, it is not
clearly defined where we can apply each of the criteria. For example, there is no way of telling whether
we should apply (7a) or (7b) or both to sentences like (1a).
We have examined some major works dealing with -ko constructions with an explicit tense marker
only in the second clause. The first clause in these constructions has either conjunct or adjunct
193
properties. To account for this phenomenon, some scholars have proposed that the clause is ambiguous
between conjunct and adjunct phrases. However, they do not seem to be very successful in elucidating
all the complicated issues regarding the constructions.
3
A New Analysis
We agree with the position, initiated by Cho ([4], [5]), that the first clause in such -ko constructions as
the following is ambiguous between adjunct clauses and conjunct clauses.
(1a) cyon-un pap-ul
mek-ko meyli-nun ppang-ul mek-ess-ta.
John-Contr boiled rice-Acc eat-Conj Mary-Contr bread-Acc eat-Past-Decl
‘John ate boiled rice and Mary ate bread.’
However, clear answers to such questions as the following have not been provided in previous analyses:
why such ambiguity arises and what are the differences between the two types of clauses. We argue that
the ambiguity arises as a result of interactions of two independent factors. One would fail to come up
with appropriate answers to the questions if one relies only on one of them.
We can find one reason for the ambiguity by correctly identifying the morpho-syntactic status of the
non-past tense marker in Korean. It has usually been assumed that the marker is -n/nun in view of such
expressions as those in (9):
(9) a. cip-ey ka-nta,
b. pap-ul
mek-nunta
house-to go-(Pres)Decl
boiled rice-Acc eat-(Pres)Decl
‘go/goes to the house’
‘eat/eats boiled rice’
(10) a. ka(*-n)-(nu)nya, mek(*-nun)-(nu)nya; ka(*-n)-kela, mek(*-nun)-ela; ka(*-n)-ca, ...
Interrogative
Directive
Propositive
b. ka(*-n/ok-ass)-a, mek(*-nun/ok-ess)-e; ka(*-n/ok-ass)-(su)pnita, mek(*-nun/ok-ess)-supnita; ...
Contrary to the general assumption, careful observations reveal that the marker is -ø rather than -n/nun
([9], [13]). Korean verbal endings have different forms according to the speech level and the sentence
type. There are five or six different speech levels and four different sentence types. Among dozens of
different possible combinations of these two grammatical categories, only one combination requires the
element -n or -nun: that of the plain level and the declarative sentence, examples of which we can see in
(9). The element does not appear in the other combinations. As we can see in (10a), it cannot combine
with the interrogative, directive or propositive ending even when the speech level concerned is the plain
level. In addition, as we can see in (10b), it cannot combine with any of the other speech level endings.
It would be very difficult to account for the distributions of -n/nun if we assume that it is a present tense
marker. Notice that, as is shown in (10b), the past tense marker -ass/ess can occur in the position where
-n/nun is not allowed to occur. We can easily solve this problem if we assume that the non-past tense
marker is -ø. The element -n or nun is just a part of the (present) declarative ending in the plain speech
level.
If the non-past tense marker in Korean is a null element, the possibility is open that the first clause in
sentence (1a) can be regarded either as a tenseless non-finite clause or as a tensed finite clause. The
possibility of this dual interpretation of -ø is a reason behind the ambiguity of the clause. The other
reason for the ambiguity is that the marker -ko itself is ambiguous between a coordinate marker and a
subordinate marker. In the following sentence -ko functions as a typical subordinate marker:
(11) cyon-un
tongsayng-ul
an(*-ass)-ko
tali-ess-ta.
John-Top/Contr younger brother-Acc embrace(-Past)-Conj run-Past-Decl
‘John ran holding his younger brother in his arms.’
John's running is the main event in this sentence and John's holding his brother is a subordinate
concomitant event. This subordinate -ko, unlike its coordinate counterpart in such sentences as (1b),
194
cannot combine with a verb stem with a tense marker, as we can see in (11)1. This fact is a specific
property of the subordinate marker -ko itself. Other subordinate markers like -ciman ‘although’ can
combine with a tense marker.
Now we are ready to answer the questions raised above regarding the ambiguity of the -ko
construction: why such ambiguity arises and what are the differences between the conjunct and adjunct
clauses. Basically, the ambiguity of the construction arises from the ambiguity of the marker -ko.
However, we cannot fully account for the ambiguity of the whole construction with the behavior of this
marker alone, because the marker does not allow a tense marker to be preceded only when it functions
as a subordinate marker. Let us make our answers to the questions with reference to sentence (1a).
(1a) cyon-un pap-ul
mek-ko meyli-nun ppang-ul mek-ess-ta.
John-Contr boiled rice-Acc eat-Conj Mary-Contr bread-Acc eat-Past-Decl
‘John ate boiled rice and Mary ate bread.’
To begin with, we assume that the conjuncts in a Korean verbal coordinate structure should have the
same finiteness status with respect to whether they are tensed or tenseless. That is, all the conjuncts in a
coordinate structure should be tensed/finite or all of them should be tenseless/non-finite.
Sentence (1a) can be a coordinate structure only when the first clause is tensed, because the second
conjunct is tensed with the past tense marker -ess. In our approach, the clause can be analyzed as
containing the non-past tense marker -ø. Here the hypothesis that the non-past marker has a null form
plays an important role. On the other hand, the first clause in sentence (1a) can be an adjunct when it
does not contain any tense marker. As we can see in (11), -ko as a subordinate marker cannot combine
with a verbal stem containing a tense marker. Consequently, the sentence can be analyzed into two
different structures of the following:
(12) a. The conjunctive reading (cf. (3-4)):
[cyon-un pap-ul
mek-ø-ko] meyli-nun ppang-ul mek-ess-ta.
John-Contr boiled rice-Acc eat-Pres-Conj Mary-Contr bread-Acc eat-Past-Decl
‘John eats boiled rice and Mary ate bread.’
b. The adjunctive reading:
[cyon-un pap-ul
mek-ko] meyli-nun ppang-ul mek-ess-ta.
John-Contr boiled rice-Acc eat-Conj Mary-Contr bread-Acc eat-Past-Decl
‘John ate boiled rice and Mary ate bread.’
We can clearly see that the ambiguity arises due to two different factors: the properties of the marker -ko
and the inaudible/invisible non-past tense marker -ø. When the first clause has an adjunctive reading, the
clause is non-finite and its time reference is determined, just like in any other subordinate sentences, by
the tense marker of the main clause -ess, which indicates the past time. When the first clause has a
conjunctive reading, the clause is finite and its time reference is determined by its own tense marker -ø,
which indicates the present time.
We assumed that the first clause of sentence (1a) can be a subordinate clause. One might argue
against this assumption on the basis of the fact that the contrastive marker -un/nun appears in both
clauses. Notice that cyon in the first clause and meyli in the second clause are both marked with the
contrastive marker. It is true that two elements which are in contrast are more likely to appear in
coordinate structures rather than in subordinate-matrix structures. However, contrastive elements can
appear very naturally in some subordinate-matrix structures:
(13) a. cyon-un khi-ka
cak-ciman
meyli-nun khi-ka
khu-ta.
John-Contr height-Nom be small-although Mary-Contr height-Non be big-(Pres)Decl
‘Although John is small, Mary is tall.’
1
Although the first clause of sentence (1a) is ambiguous between a conjunctive and a subjunctive reading, that of
sentence (1b) is not because it bears a tense marker explicitly.
195
b. cyon-un khi-ka
cak-un
panmeyn(-ey) meyli-nun khi-ka
khu-ta.
John-Contr height-Nom be small-Rel contrary(-at) Mary-Contr height-Non be big-(Pres)Decl
‘While John is small, Mary is tall.’
The verbal ending -ciman ‘although’ in sentence (a) is a subordinate marker. In addition, it is
indisputable that the first clause in sentence (b) is a subordinate clause. The clause cyon-un khi-ka cakis a relative clause and modifies the noun panmyen ‘contrary.’ Here an element in the relative clause is
contrasted with one in the matrix clause.
In section 2, we saw that previous analyses have difficulties in dealing with the following data. Let us
consider how we can get over these difficulties in our new system.
(4) cyon-un
cikum pap-ul
mek-ko meyli-nun akka ppang-ul mek-ess-ta.
John-Contr now boiled rice-Acc eat-Conj Mary-Contr before bread-Acc eat-Past-Decl
‘John is eating boiled rice now and Mary ate bread a moment ago.’
(5a) motwu (ecey)
yehayng ttena-ko na-man honca (cikum) cip-ul
ciki-nta.
all
yesterday trip
leave-Conj I-only alone now house-Acc keep-(Pres)Decl
‘All others left on a trip (yesterday) and I am alone staying home (now).’
(8) cyon-un akka pap-ul
mek-ess-ko meyli-nun ecey
ppang-ul mek-ess-ta.
John-Contr before boiled rice-Acc eat-Past-Conj Mary-Contr yesterday bread-Acc eat-Past-Decl
‘John ate boiled rice a moment ago and Mary ate bread yesterday.’
Cho ([4], [5]) cannot account for the fact that the first clause of sentence (4) has only a conjunctive
reading. He wrongly assumes that the clause is ambiguous between a conjunctive reading and an
adjunctive reading. In our analysis, however, it cannot have an adjunctive reading because the adverb
cikum ‘now’ is in conflict with the tense interpretation it would have as a subordinate clause. Chung’s
system ([6], [7], [8]) posits a null-form past tense marker for the first clause in sentence (5a) and, hence,
the clause has a past tense reading regardless of whether it contains the adverb ecey ‘yesterday’ or not.
However, the sentence is actually ambiguous between a past tense and a present tense reading when it
does not have the adverb2. Under our system, it has a present tense reading when the first clause is a
conjunct, which contains -ø. When it is an adjunct, it obtains a past tense reading on the basis of the
semantic/pragmatic relations between a subordinate clause and its matrix clause. Remember that
Chung’s system, which accounts for the fact syntactically that the first conjunct has a past tense reading,
does not have any sources to rely on to get the past tense reading. In defining the categorial status of the
first clause in (8), our system, unlike Lee’s ([12]), does not have any inconsistencies resulting from the
application of different criteria. The clause is a conjunct regardless of whether it contains an adverb or
not, because it contains an explicit tense marker.
According to our analysis, each conjunct in a coordinate structure carries its own tense marker (when
the last conjunct is tensed). Hence, the tense marker in the second conjunct in sentences like (1a) does
not have any effect over the first conjunct. It exerts its effect over the first clause only when the first
clause is a subordinate clause. Therefore, we have no reason to believe that the tense marker in the
second conjunct of a coordinate structure has its scope over the whole sentence including the first
conjunct. Then, as for the morpho-syntactic status of the tense markers, those who assume that the tense
markers in Korean are clitics do not have any convincing evidence for their assumption. Although they
appear to be clitics in view of such sentences as (1a), a more careful observation of them reveals that
this appearance is just an illusion.
2
When the sentence contains the adverb, it has only the past tense reading because the adverb ecey ‘yesterday’ is in
conflict with the present tense reading.
196
4
Conclusion
In this paper, we have provided a new system to account for the tense phenomena in -ko constructions
with no explicit tense markers in the first clause. After examining some major works on these
constructions in section 2, we have shown, in section 3, that their problems can be overcome under our
own framework. The main issue in dealing with the constructions was to effectively account for the
ambiguity of the first clause between a conjunctive reading and an adjunctive reading. We argued that
the ambiguity arises as a result of interactions of two independent factors: the ambiguity of -ko and the
formal property of the non-past tense marker. We saw why such ambiguity arises and figured out the
differences between the two types of clauses concerned. Most of all, we could show that the tense
markers in Korean are more likely to be inflectional affixes than clitics.
References
1. Chae, Hee-Rahk: Particles in Korean: Focusing on Verbal Particles [written in Korean]. Language Research 41.3
(2005) 569-604
2. Chae, Hee-Rahk, No, Yongkyoon: A Survey of Morphological Issues in Korean: Focusing on Syntactically
Relevant Phenomena. Korean Linguistics 9 (1998) 65-109
3. Choi, Incheol: Nominalization and Verbal Coordination in Korean. Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics VIII
(1999) 295-309
4. Cho, Sae-Youn: Untensed Phrases in Korean Verbal Coordination. Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics VI
(1995) 157-172
5. Cho, Sae-Youn: Non-tensed VP Coordination in Korean: Structure and Meaning. Language and Information 9.1
(2005) 35-49.
6. Chung, Daeho: The Structure and Tense Interpretation of Tenseless -ko Coordination. Studies in Generative
Grammar 11.1 (2001) 41-68
7. Chung, Daeho: On Conjunct Size in Korean -ko Coordination. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 11 (2003) 471-484
8. Chung, Daeho: What Does Bare -ko Coordination Say about Post-verbal Morphology in Korean? Lingua 115
(2005) 549-568.
9. Kang, Beom-mo: Functional Inheritance, Anaphora, and Semantic Interpretation. Ph.D. dissertation, Brown Univ.
(1988)
10. Kang, Beom-mo: Categorial Grammar [written in Korean]. Korea Univ. Press (2001)
11. Kim, Jong-Bok: The Grammar of Negation: A Lexicalist, Constraint-based Perspective. Ph.D. dissertation,
Stanford Univ. (1995)
12. Lee, Wooseung: Tense-shared Coordination Constructions in Korean: Implications for Morpho-syntax. Harvard
Studies in Korean Linguistics X (2004) 609-620
13. Suh, Cheong-Soo: Korean Grammar [written in Korean]. Hanyang Univ. Press (1996)
14. Yi, Eun-Young: Adjunction, Coordination, and Their Theoretical Consequences. Paper read at the conference of
the International Circle of Korean Linguistics, Univ. of London (1994)
15. Yoon, James H-S: Coordination (A)symmetries. Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics VII (1997) 3-32.
16. Yoon, Jeong-Me: Verbal Coordination in Korean and English and the Checking Approach to Verbal
Morphology. Korean Journal of Linguistics 21.4 (1996) 1105-1135
17. Zwicky, Arnold M.: Clitics and particles. Language 61.2 (1985)
18. Zwicky, Arnold M., Pullum, Geoffrey K.: Cliticization vs. inflection: English n’t. Language 59.3 (1983)
197